On Fri, 2005-01-28 at 11:58 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-01-27 at 08:52 -0500, seth vidal wrote:
>>> RH has the ability to change this at any time.
>> ability? yes. willingness? no.
>>> It is not - RH has had no problems in adding yum support and has no
>>> problem in adding and removing other packages at any time at RH's free
>> Do you know why they had no issue adding yum support? B/c it could be
>> covered internally. If it broke and I wasn't around to fix it - they
>> could take care of it.
>> 100+ lines of C++ they were not interested in maintaining.
> How comes, FE/fedora.us is able to maintain it?
Fedora.us has/had an upstream apt-rpm developer (some weird masochist
sharing my mail-address :) maintaining it and writing all sorts of weird
Lua-extensions to it to better fit the world of FC, external kernel-module
packages and such.
You know, that I know :-)
I definitely appreciate this.
> I know apt's code is ... ... leaves a lot to be desired, but
> require that much effort to maintain the package.
Maintaining the package ain't hard,
That's what I assume. It's just a
package, not much different from
others, with bugs, deficiencies and "uniquenesses" of it's own. Nothing
more, nothing less.
but developing apt-rpm into various
directions required by FC (multilib,
ACK, that's apt's main deficiency.
new repodata format)
IMO, this is more a matter of politics
and willingness, but a technical
Technically, I don't see any need for apt to adopt yum's repodata
format. Politically, this requirement is introduced by RH not wanting to
add apt-repositories and fedora.us apparently being unable to set up
complete repositories. If apt-repositories are cleverly set up, the
additional overhead they introduce in addition to the original files
becomes more or less negligible.
BTW: Even SuSE is available with apt. I wonder why they don't have the
multilib issue - I guess they don't ship multilibs :)